EPT"Too Toy-like": What Causes People to Think This? - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Lysis
United States147 Posts
| ||
|
3FFA
United States3931 Posts
On February 24 2010 08:08 Sandrosuperstar wrote: that's so funny because you actually can retract them into the ground xD also agree on more blood. the best part about starcraft 1 for me was goon-blood everywhere, and marines dying and hydras busted open. I just liked the goons' blood. I mean, how many times do you get to see BLUE BLOOD?!? I was like this when I marched out my goons for an attack:  goons O PLEASE DIE! | ||
|
Talic_Zealot
688 Posts
On February 24 2010 08:36 MamiyaOtaru wrote: Huh? Rounded surfaces take more polys Look at the two supply depots. With the level of detail in for example the fans it will require more polys. In sharp edges i do not mean blocky and texture ontop. It is easier to make a simpler but rounder building that looks descent with the use of good textures than to make a more sharp edged but more complicated one. | ||
|
UdderChaos
United Kingdom707 Posts
On February 24 2010 08:57 Talic_Zealot wrote: Look at the two supply depots. With the level of detail in for example the fans it will require more polys. In sharp edges i do not mean blocky and texture ontop. It is easier to make a simpler but rounder building that looks descent with the use of good textures than to make a more sharp edged but more complicated one. excpet that pic i posted is actually a warcraft 3 mod and the fans go round and its a full 3d model. So if the warcraft 3 engine can handle that, then why cant the sc2 one which is basicly an upgarded version? I | ||
|
HaruHaru
United States988 Posts
On February 24 2010 07:34 Manit0u wrote: If you haven't already noticed, it's the same thing like with the older and new cars. Old cars were angular metal boxes, new cars are rounded plastic bulbs. + Show Spoiler [Examples] + Simple as that. And I have absolutely no idea why Blizzard decided to make everything rounded... At least Terrans should have a lot of sharp angles on their stuff. To sum it all up: SC2 needs more manly (angular) stuff and some better sounds. For comparison I give you an example of how a real tank should look like/sound: | ||
|
Knickknack
United States1187 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.wc3c.net/revolution/gallery/thumbs/1110841684.gif) ![[image loading]](http://starcraft.incgamers.com/w/images/thumb/b/bd/Command_center.jpg/250px-Command_center.jpg) Sure there is now more roundedness and shineyness. But what stands out to me is the considerable difference in perspective. Compare the angle of the legs to get a sense of the ground it stands on. I'm not sure quite what to make of this. Is it on the side of a hill or something? (no) They have moved the perspective upwards? (yes) Lack of realistic perspective gives a sense of the object being treated casually without seriousness? (maybe) But its probably mostly design. | ||
|
Centric
United States1989 Posts
On February 24 2010 02:33 frequency wrote: It looks fine. Stop complaining. It's posts like these that make me super angry. The beta is about feedback, not just about playing and having fun. It's about exploring the sides to the game that are good, and the sides that are bad, and being able to comment on them. Simple feedback or comments should not be construed as "complaining". The beta wasn't released just so devs could hear the community massage Blizzard's ego, otherwise we'd all have keys. There are some things about it that look great. For example, the warp-in of the Protoss buildings actually looks like I imagine a warp-in. The drone morphing into a building animation is sick as wel. However, the game does look a little toy-like. Some of it may be the graphics settings. I noticed at low settings it is much more apparent. Like a lot of people have said already, things look a lot more rounded out compared to SC1. This may be because in SC1 everything was a little pixelated, and thus everything is harder to round out. | ||
|
EmeraldSparks
United States1451 Posts
| ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
On February 24 2010 09:38 Centric wrote: It's posts like these that make me super angry. The beta is about feedback, not just about playing and having fun. It's about exploring the sides to the game that are good, and the sides that are bad, and being able to comment on them. Simple feedback or comments should not be construed as "complaining". The beta wasn't released just so devs could hear the community massage Blizzard's ego, otherwise we'd all have keys. There are some things about it that look great. For example, the warp-in of the Protoss buildings actually looks like I imagine a warp-in. The drone morphing into a building animation is sick as wel. However, the game does look a little toy-like. Some of it may be the graphics settings. I noticed at low settings it is much more apparent. Like a lot of people have said already, things look a lot more rounded out compared to SC1. This may be because in SC1 everything was a little pixelated, and thus everything is harder to round out. I have to agree here. In fact, much of the reason why I made this thread is primarily to give detailed feedback, since "X looks too WC3-ish" is lousy feedback that doesn't say anything. I started this thread not really understanding where the toy complaints were coming from (mostly due to all the retarded "looks too much like X" complaints), but recent posts have explained it well enough that I now understand, and even agree with many of their points. I think that's a very big step up towards the issue, and considering that beta has officially begun, now is the best time to be as critical as possible towards any aspect of the game we aren't satisfied with. Companies are much more reluctant to change sounds/graphics after release, so it's definitely important to provide as much feedback as possible before the game comes out. | ||
|
Kratisto
United States199 Posts
1: Everything is too round 2: Everything is too bulky 3: The lighting makes me think of plastic instead of metal--I don't know how to describe why. Maybe it's not crisp enough, and lacks the completely white (not bloomed, mind you) reflection appearances. 4: The proportions of certain things are pretty bad and are evidence of Blizzard's artists' inability to escape WoW-esque character models (hurr, let's make everyone have huge limbs). This goes for Zerg and Protoss as well). All the problems can be brought to the fore-front by comparing a picture of the SC Terran Command Center+Comsat with the SC2 Terran Orbital Command Center. And no, it's not just a problem of moving to 3D. | ||
|
iloahz
United States964 Posts
| ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
Alright, apparently Blizzard can't get away from making everything look like WoW. So what's the problem with that? It's their new style and it's pretty obvious that they made some visible effort to move Starcraft 2's art direction away from being too "Warcraft-y" or colorful. But hey. The artists that made Warcraft 3 and WoW are also doing the art for Starcraft 2. Keeping the art styles completely different is difficult and remember that they are trying to balance accessibility (computing power) and gameplay while keeping everything true to Starcraft 1's original artistic "vision" AND bringing the game up to modern standards. If everything was proportioned and modeled very realistically, marines would be too small to quickly select individually, tanks would be hulking vehicles that turn and move slowly, dropships would land to drop and load units, and Command Centers would actually look like a center of operations. There are many games that prefer using realistically proportioned and graphically realistic units and buildings that end up with slow point-and-click gameplay, as demonstrated by that video up there. You'll need squad-based combat and high hitpoint units to deal with control issues that are rooted in making the game realistic. Starcraft 2 wouldn't be able to play like Starcraft 1 because the art design would completely get in the way. This would be fine if you played Starcraft 2 for the explosions and flashy lights, but I'm sure most people on Teamliquid aren't here for that reason. And no, something like "changed perspective" won't result in people taking things less seriously... | ||
|
sob3k
United States7572 Posts
90% of the problem, as other people have said, is the fact that bliz seems incapable of portraying anything near a 90degree angle in the building design. I think this is terrible decision as it does make the terran buildings and units look: A. Like they are toys with rounded safety edges B. Very small, objects have a tendancy to be more rounded when small, and have more angles visible when large. (due to wear and tear) The problem with the specularity is not that the terran units HAVE it, but that the type of specularity chosen is incorrect if you want to look like metal. Go look up a specularity tutorial for any 3d modeling program and you will see that there are many types of specularity ranging from a very diffuse and large reflection (plastic) to a small distinct edged reflection (metallic). The objects in SC2 all have very soft, large highlights, and thus look like plastic. Also, every surface is colored/painted, which also gives the impression of a material other than metal. Sidenote: Hellion's scale is so bizarre as to be completely unacceptable, grouped with marines or marauders you will see they are the size of an RC car.... this is retarded. | ||
|
Tom Phoenix
1114 Posts
On February 24 2010 09:11 UdderChaos wrote: excpet that pic i posted is actually a warcraft 3 mod and the fans go round and its a full 3d model. So if the warcraft 3 engine can handle that, then why cant the sc2 one which is basicly an upgarded version? I "Basically an upgraded version" of what? The StarCraft II engine is a completely new engine. Infact, ever since their experience with developing StarCraft (the WC2 engine they used for most of the alpha turned out to be insufficient and they had to make a new one from scratch), Blizzard has made a seperate engine for each of their games. I don`t understand where people get this misconception that SC2 is using an upgraded WC3 engine. This was debunked a long time ago. | ||
|
Norway
United States341 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.myextralife.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/starcraft_alpha_build.jpg) /thread | ||
|
Centric
United States1989 Posts
On February 24 2010 10:40 sob3k wrote:Sidenote: Hellion's scale is so bizarre as to be completely unacceptable, grouped with marines or marauders you will see they are the size of an RC car.... this is retarded. I actually hate the hellion model...mostly the wheels. I could be wrong, but I don't think there was a single unit in StarCraft had wheels. But its not just that I think they aren't from StarCraft 1. I think they just look bad. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://www.starcraft2france.com/uploads/pics/Hellion.jpg) + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://www.simply-rc-cars.com/images/Remote%20Control%20Cars.jpg) Try and tell me those don't look alike. | ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
1. Match unit/building sizes in Starcraft 1. 2. Make units/buildings easy to click on and micro. 3. Keep art design from getting in the way of gameplay. Honestly the whole "Terrran problem" is not a problem at all. Would an SC1 supply depot directly translated into 3D look good at all? Does anyone here actually PREFER the old command center's awkward blocky model to the new models? Wouldn't making everything look metallic only make things look like metallic toys rather than plastic toys? | ||
|
UdderChaos
United Kingdom707 Posts
On February 24 2010 10:43 Tom Phoenix wrote: "Basically an upgraded version" of what? The StarCraft II engine is a completely new engine. Infact, ever since their experience with developing StarCraft (the WC2 engine they used for most of the alpha turned out to be insufficient and they had to make a new one from scratch), Blizzard has made a seperate engine for each of their games. I don`t understand where people get this misconception that SC2 is using an upgraded WC3 engine. This was debunked a long time ago. Well that just re-enforces my point then doesn't it? If they built a whole new engine there is no excuse for it not being capable of what a warcarft 3 mod did if this new engine is more powerfull and built from the ground up for starcraft. | ||
|
hixhix
1158 Posts
On February 24 2010 10:50 Norway wrote: lol hey gaiz.... you realize this is still in the beta process? /thread Way to slap yourself. You realize that was the ALPHA vs final versions ? The beta sc1 was very close to the final one. Same with WC3. Based on previous beta experiences, Blizzard usually releases the final product 5-8 months after the beta phase starts. Also, the reason the game was changed so much was because Blizzard listened to the fan criticism/suggestions. If no one raises a concern, there won't be any change then. It's the beta for a reason: everyone is welcome to complain about what's wrong and what has to be improved. | ||
|
Saturnize
United States2473 Posts
On February 24 2010 11:00 hixhix wrote: Way to slap yourself. You realize that was the ALPHA vs final versions ? The beta sc1 was very close to the final one. Same with WC3. Based on previous beta experiences, Blizzard usually releases the final product 5-8 months after the beta phase starts. So basically what you are saying is that this game has no hope? Nice... | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://image.automotive.com/f/featuredvehicles/9535330+pheader/p69630_large+1979_Chrysler_300+Front_Passengers_Side_View.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.biglotcars.com/RotatorStockPhotos%5C08%20stock%20photos%20480%20x%20360%5Cchrysler-300.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.3-z.net/Eric%20Web/Gateway.gif)
![[image loading]](http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:sKBANIp3xUi-qM:http://www.sc2armory.com/img/protoss/buildings/gateway.jpg)
